HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9888 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties no.1 & 2. 2. In view of the proposed order, notices to opposite parties no.3 to 6 are hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main relief:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to take any coercive action against the life and property of the petitioner on the basis of order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Execution Case No. 1498 of 2019 (Smt. Sarita vs. Devendra Kumar Tiwari) under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya, against Opposite Party No.6 fallowed by the recovery citation dated 03.10.2025 for realization of maintenance amount purported in compliance of the judgment and order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 982 of 2017 (Smt. Sarita and Others vs. Devendra Kumar Tiwari) as contained in Annexure No. 1,2 and 3 respectively to this writ petition." 4. Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA, has raised objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition by submitting that pursuant to the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in execution case, the recovery citation dated 03.10.2025 has been directed to be realised. The aforesaid Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Kumar Pandey, Virendra Patel Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ram Baran Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) Collector / District Magistrate Ayodhya And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) exercise has been undertaken pursuant to the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur. As per Sri Singh, the aforesaid fact has been indicated in the prayer itself. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved from any inaction on the part of any authority, he may take appropriate legal recourse before the appropriate authority/ court of law. 5. On that, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the order dated 18.09.2025 has been passed against Devendra Kumar Tiwari but in the light of order dated 18.09.2025, coercive steps have been taken against the present petitioner, who is father of Devendra Kumar Tiwari. He has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred a representation to the District Magistrate concerned for not taking any coercive steps in respect of the property of the present petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, since the required exercise is to be undertaken pursuant to the execution order dated 18.09.2025, therefore, it is expected from the concerning authority to take appropriate steps in compliance of the execution order dated 18.09.2025 strictly in accordance with law. If, in any case, in the garb of the aforesaid order, the petitioner is harassed in any manner whatsoever, without having any cogent reasons to that effect, he may take appropriate steps before the competent authority/ court of law and if such steps are taken by the petitioner, the same may be disposed of strictly in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. November 6, 2025 RBS/- CRLP No. 9888 of 2025 2 (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench